i though this would be most suitable for luthiers...

where do u stand on the english/metric debate for instruments?

i personally never use english. i love millimeters, they're so easy to work with on a calculator. so why do u all use english? just the way u were brought up? my observation is that the younger people are, the more and more they have a preference towards metric. i guess u do actually learn something useful in elementary school...

I can't do metric conversions to relative size in my head to save my life, and all of my rulers, yardsticks and measuring tapes are in English.

Most American kids are only taught the most basic of metric conversions, because English is the standard measurement in the US. What's weird is that I'm so close to Canada that my TV station';s local weather forecast displays in Celcius as well as Farenheit, for all the Canadian viewers out there, but I can only tell you metric conversions for miles/kilometers and gallons/liters...

I'm old so I'm comfortable with both. Although metric is all based on ten.

Metric system is superior to the English system... I don't really see any reason to use it anymore, besides that other people use it.

In the States, we use it mostly because "it's what we've always done"...

The metric system *is* superior, I suppose, in that it is all based on factors of 10, and therefore easier to multiply or divide lengths, increase the scale of measurements, etc. It's just not something that they were really teaching in school when I was a kid, so I never learned it.

I worked in construction for a while hears ago, and all those fractions that the English system uses just come so naturally to me that I don't even think about it anymore, and I can very easily convert them to decimals in my head.

I much prefer the metric over the English system. The English system seem too haphazard for me. I also prefer using SI units over Foot/Pounds etc. though thats basically the same argument.

most countries other than the USA (pretty much all of them?) teach their kids the metric system at a young age. Here in the states, we only briefly touch on it, with the exception of areas like chemistry, where it allows for more precise/finite measurement

Here english sistem is not even taught at school. The only thing that they taught us is that 1 inch is more or less 2.5cm so my first aproach to english ssytem was when I start with my project. When I was reading Hiscocks book and get to the part about measures I foundnd that is easy to use for metric system (whch what we use here) for some things and english (or imperial as Hiscocks refers to) for some other things and it will depend on the number I get. If I get for example for a nut a 4.5 I use it in metric but if I get a 1.8 inches I use it in english.

...The metric system *is* superior, I suppose, in that it is all based on factors of 10, and therefore easier to multiply or divide lengths, increase the scale of measurements, etc...

One thing often not noticed in these discussions is that base 12 and base 36 both give integer results when dividing by 3. Something that can't be said for base 10.

I use mainly metric, but I more often than not measure stuff in feet and inches. I also tend to use miles rather than kilometers when describing things and I'm like Blizzard in that I prefer to use Imperial units for weights.

When I grew up it was the imperial system of measure, as a preteen. As a young pubescent teenager, I was asked by a classmate "When a man penetrates a woman does the whole thing go in or does in go in 1 centimetre?"

I knew my world of inches had gone metric then.

I think the Metric system beats the Imperial system by about an inch.

One thing often not noticed in these discussions is that base 12 and base 36 both give integer results when dividing by 3. Something that can't be said for base 10.

I suppose you mean that the base is divisible by 3 into an integer but I don't really see the advantage. You can't divide 36 or 12 by 5 and get an integer, but you can with 10. Is there some reason that 3 is particularly important?

I suppose you mean that the base is divisible by 3 into an integer but I don't really see the advantage. You can't divide 36 or 12 by 5 and get an integer, but you can with 10. Is there some reason that 3 is particularly important?

Yeah actually I mentioned the wrong point. The benefit is that it results in a real number. But every system has it's good and bad side. Personally I'd rather work in hex most of the time. Much easier to do certain types of math when the base is a power of 2. But for woodworking I mostly use inches and thousandths. So I guess it wouldn't make any difference to use metric except that 86.36cm scale :crying:

Yeah actually I mentioned the wrong point. The benefit is that it results in a real number. But every system has it's good and bad side. Personally I'd rather work in hex most of the time. Much easier to do certain types of math when the base is a power of 2. But for woodworking I mostly use inches and thousandths. So I guess it wouldn't make any difference to use metric except that 86.36cm scale :crying:
Hex is base 16.

My gripe with the metric system, is that it makes doing fractional calculations very very complex to do in your head. I know what 13/16 plus 5/8 equals without needing a calculator. But if I'm given a meter-long piece of wood and want to cut it up into 8 equal pieces, not many people can look at that metric tape measure and think, "Oh, that's at 125mm, 250mm, 375mm, 500mm, 625, 750 875...." It's not too easy to take 1/4 of something and split that into quarters, and keep those numbers in your head sorted out. Heck, ask anyone to take a 32nd of something, that'll melt their brains trying to do decimal equivalents!

Anyways, metric has it's place. Especially when doing CNC programming or machine layouts.

Hex is base 16.

Yes, and 16 is a power of two last time I checked ;)

My gripe with the metric system, is that it makes doing fractional calculations very very complex to do in your head. I know what 13/16 plus 5/8 equals without needing a calculator. But if I'm given a meter-long piece of wood and want to cut it up into 8 equal pieces, not many people can look at that metric tape measure and think, "Oh, that's at 125mm, 250mm, 375mm, 500mm, 625, 750 875...." It's not too easy to take 1/4 of something and split that into quarters, and keep those numbers in your head sorted out. Heck, ask anyone to take a 32nd of something, that'll melt their brains trying to do decimal equivalents!

Anyways, metric has it's place. Especially when doing CNC programming or machine layouts.Yeah, I can see that a bit if someone is used to it. Coming from a family that is heavily steeped in construction, carpentry and masonry, I am pretty good with measurements and such. But the benefit of metric is that you don't have to deal with fractions per se in the first place. There is no "quarter centimeter". The imperial system is faulty in that it requires that you typicall express a measurement in relation to another whole unit. Half a cup, quarter mile, half pound. It's tiresome to me in that regard, and I've grown up using it.

Personally I'd rather work in hex most of the time.

Why do you do that to yourself??? :p

Yes, and 16 is a power of two last time I checked ;)
AH!!! You said whose "base is a power of two." details, details... I missed that part... :D

the main reason i find metric useful is for doing measurements between centimeters or millimeters. its so much easier to visualize a fraction of 10 than a fraction of 16.

too bad its impossible to find metric-based measuring tools. like this one caliper i have, its only in inches. sure, it tells me parts of a 32nd and parts of a 64th...but i have no use for such things.

Yeah actually I mentioned the wrong point. The benefit is that it results in a real number.

Huh? What math are you doing to get imaginary numbers working in base 10? ;) It certainly isn't division by 3.

My gripe with the metric system, is that it makes doing fractional calculations very very complex to do in your head. I know what 13/16 plus 5/8 equals without needing a calculator. But if I'm given a meter-long piece of wood and want to cut it up into 8 equal pieces, not many people can look at that metric tape measure and think, "Oh, that's at 125mm, 250mm, 375mm, 500mm, 625, 750 875...." It's not too easy to take 1/4 of something and split that into quarters, and keep those numbers in your head sorted out. Heck, ask anyone to take a 32nd of something, that'll melt their brains trying to do decimal equivalents!


The difference is what you grew up with. I grew up with metric and dividing a meter into 8 equal lengths in my head is pretty straightforward. I'd need more time to add 5/8 and 13/16 since I'm not used to using common imperial fractions.

Yea I agree, why not use both ?!? I am very comfortable with english in everyday carpentry, I prefer Metric for Lutherie though. But when Framing a house, it seems like english makes more sense... Dont ask me why, maybe its cuz I grew up with english, maybe there is a logical explanation to why english is better... I dont know. Anyhow, if someone is good with both, then kudos to that !

I use metric primarily but sometimes I need to use imperial due to some tooling or documented measurements. I find imperial conversions to be a pain in the proverbial (ie. conversion).

SI, always, becuse it is...Standard International. Agreed by the entire world of science and industry (not China, though, as far as I remember). Hence easy to find measuring gadget for, over the entire world - except possibly USA and East Asia...:smug:

But you know, don't you: metrics are coming, inch by inch.:p

Huh? What math are you doing to get imaginary numbers working in base 10? ;) It certainly isn't division by 3.

Maybe he meant a rational number?


I just realized that I use the imperial system for measure height. Ie 6'2" and also stuff like scale lengths of instruments, though thats more because when they were designed they used imperial 34" is far easier to use than 854mm or whatever it is.

Maybe he meant a rational number?


Rational means it can be expressed as a fraction of two integers... for which 10/3 fits nicely... so I really don't know what he meant.

Rational means it can be expressed as a fraction of two integers... for which 10/3 fits nicely... so I really don't know what he meant.

Well let's just say that although highschool math was a long time ago for me, if you give me enough chances I'll eventually figure out what I'm talking about. They're just called "repeating decimal" numbers.

The only reason I brought it up was that I've had this base 10 vs base 12 discussion with my brother who is an architect. To him base 12 has obvious advantages that some people might never notice.

In one summer job I ended up doing autoCAD in imperial. Man did that ever wreck my head. Instead of getting the number of millimetres and putting them in it was measure, find the fractional value convert to decimal then put it into auto cad. Constantly typing three decimal places wasn't too much fun either. (granted I'm sure there's easier ways but I didn't know better and it's scarred me for life in ever using the imperial system)

Everything is divided up weird in imperial too. 12 inches in a foot then 3 sets of 12 in a yard. I don't even know how many yards in a mile. Not the easiest combination of figures to work with. Then the fractional elements, after doing engineering and working with metric its seems so much easier. Doing calculations straight off the bat is easy.

I know you guys say adding the fractions and stuff is easy but it's a bit like guys that are big into darts. When adding up a score then subtracting it they don't really do the maths they just know from experience that this plus this plus this is my score.

I can see at some stage everything going metric its just a matter of time.

There can be a problems though like when an imperial measurement has become a standard (like the scale length of a bass or quarter inch jacks) which usually leaves funny metric measurements. (We still order pints of beer not 568.26 mils of beer)

Then the brits and americans have different versions of the same thing to further complicate things (tons pints etc)

Go metric you know it makes sense ;)

I guess that the people that find easy to do math calculations with imperial are people who work with those numbers all the time. Ask a bunch of lawyers to tell you how much is 3/4 - 3/8 in less that 10 seconds and you will see some funny faces and I meant no offense. My sister is a lawyer, my brother in law is a lawyer and both are really intelligent people. I have a few friends that are lawyers and some of them (not all!!:p) are really brilliant!!!

There can be a problems though like when an imperial measurement has become a standard (like the scale length of a bass or quarter inch jacks) which usually leaves funny metric measurements. (We still order pints of beer not 568.26 mils of beer)



yea, working with that 34" scale length in metric can be a pain. but i think that luthiers/carpenters are put off by it because whats standard is in english. if luthiers started making instruments in metric, im sure they would change that 86.36 cm length to 86 or 87, just for ease of use.

What if you did make an 86 cm scale bass instead of 86.36 cm would those extra 3 millimetres make any difference at all. Its hard to believe it would be noticeable especially when those 3 millimetres are spread out among 22 or so frets.

I suppose it does make a difference if your using a jig or tool designed for cutting the fret slots of an imperial scale length.

Imagine if everything did go metric suddenly I think people would start looking back on the days of imperial when those extra three millimetres gave so much more depth of tone and sustain than on the newer metric models :D

Imagine if everything did go metric suddenly I think people would start looking back on the days of imperial when those extra three millimetres gave so much more depth of tone and sustain than on the newer metric models :D
yeah, they wouldn't have that "indefinable imperial mojo." :rolleyes: :rollno:

Am I the only one who uses both within the same design? I was taught imperial in school, but picked up on metric when I started working with instruments. Most of my full scale drawings include measurements in both metric and imperial. Sometimes I need millimeters, sometimes I need 1/16".

What if you did make an 86 cm scale bass instead of 86.36 cm would those extra 3 millimetres make any difference at all. Its hard to believe it would be noticeable especially when those 3 millimetres are spread out among 22 or so frets.

I suppose it does make a difference if your using a jig or tool designed for cutting the fret slots of an imperial scale length.

Imagine if everything did go metric suddenly I think people would start looking back on the days of imperial when those extra three millimetres gave so much more depth of tone and sustain than on the newer metric models :D

its more a matter of practicality. if your calculating your own frets, or something else of the sort, you would much rather work with 86 than 86.36

so three millimeters less is too short for you? fine, go for 87. actually, 88 would be good. or 89. eh might as well go for 90, its a good number. man, cant wait for those 100 cm basses. that would make life so much better. :D

Rational means it can be expressed as a fraction of two integers... for which 10/3 fits nicely... so I really don't know what he meant.

Hmm I was thinking of surds. Bleh.

Everything is divided up weird in imperial too. 12 inches in a foot then 3 sets of 12 in a yard. I don't even know how many yards in a mile.

Oh, come on... it's easy...

12 inches to the foot
3 feet to the yard
5 yards 1 foot and 6 inches to the rod
4 rods to the chain
10 chains to the furlong
8 furlongs to the mile.

;)

Oh, come on... it's easy...

12 inches to the foot
3 feet to the yard
5 yards 1 foot and 6 inches to the rod
4 rods to the chain
10 chains to the furlong
8 furlongs to the mile.

;)

So a furlong is like 200 metres long then? A chain must be 20 metres, a rod 5 metres.

That's easy if you know how many metres are in a mile.

Metric for the win.

A furlong is 220 yards, around about the longest distance you can comfortably plough with cattle (a "furrow long"). A rod is the rod you hit the cattle with while you're doing that.

A chain was measured as four rods, and was a convenient measure for land allocation. An acre is a portion of land one furlong by one chain. A chain is 22 yards.

Inches, feet and yards were convenient measures. An inch is the width of an average man's thumb at the base of the nail, a foot is the length of an (wait for it) average man's foot.

A yard is the length of an average man's step. Edit: No it's not... it's slightly larger than that... a yard is apparently the length of a stick that was routinely used to beat children with. Nice.

The mile was standardised as 80 chains when the chain system was brought out. It was originally the length of 1000 paces (hence the name, which derives from the latin for a thousand). A pace was two steps.

Never heard about furlongs, chains or yards before. :eyebrow:

Never heard about furlongs, chains or yards before. :eyebrow:

That's because Peru is so behind the times ;)

Ehh ...heard about yards but not about rods!!

That's because Peru is so behind the times ;)

:spit: ;)

Ehh ...heard about yards but not about rods!!



:spit: ;)

Yeah, you need to get invaded by England to get these kind of updates ;)

As a canadian I am very familiar and equally comfortable with metric & imperial conversions. To convert inches to MMs just multiply by 25.4.

1 inch = 25.4mm

For example: 25.5" = 647.7mm because 25.5x25.4 = 647.7mm

To convert mm to inches: 647.7 divided by 25.4 = 25.5

I've seen in some math textbooks where they say you must multiply by 0.0393700787 It's ridiculous. Simply divide millimetres by 25.4 and you get inches bang on.

I never use metric when slotting a fingerboard as I can get more precision using decimal inches. .5 mm is .02 inches rounded up which isn't a tight enough tolerance for my liking. 1/64 = .015625"; 1/100 = .01; 1/128 = .0078"

I suppose you mean that the base is divisible by 3 into an integer but I don't really see the advantage. You can't divide 36 or 12 by 5 and get an integer, but you can with 10. Is there some reason that 3 is particularly important?
The advantage is that 12 is divisible by 2, 3, 4 and 6. 10 is divisible only by 2 and 5. So my main gripe with metric is that it further entrenches the base 10 system, delaying our worldwide conversion to the dozenal system.

As a canadian I am very familiar and equally comfortable with metric & imperial conversions. To convert inches to MMs just multiply by 25.4.

1 inch = 25.4mm

For example: 25.5" = 647.7mm because 25.5x25.4 = 647.7mm

To convert mm to inches: 647.7 divided by 25.4 = 25.5

I've seen in some math textbooks where they say you must multiply by 0.0393700787 It's ridiculous. Simply divide millimetres by 25.4 and you get inches bang on.

I never use metric when slotting a fingerboard as I can get more precision using decimal inches. .5 mm is .02 inches rounded up which isn't a tight enough tolerance for my liking. 1/64 = .015625"; 1/100 = .01; 1/128 = .0078"

Could you explain why imperial is more accurate than metric please I think I am missing something.

Could you explain why imperial is more accurate than metric please I think I am missing something.
It isn't more accurate. The ratio is exactly 100 in = 254 cm, going either direction. As a decimal to use in multiplication going one way, this is 254/100, which equals 2.54. To go the other way you must multiply by 100/254, which equals 0.393700787401575. It's not that imperial is more exact; both systems are exact. Just if you restrict yourself to one operation of multiplication and not division, you need a whole lot more digits to describe the ratio completely. Kind of like how 3/1 = 3 but 1/3 = 0.33333333... ad infinitum.

To put it another way,

Going from cm to inches you can either divide by 2.54 or multiply by 0.393700787401575.
Going from inches to cm you can either divide by 0.393700787401575 or multiply by 2.54.

That I understand I work the conversion every day when building, it was more the comment about the fret slotting that I could not see any advantage in imperial. I use both myself metric when dealing with small measurements and imperial when working in larger sizes particularly if I have to visualise the size.I also know a fair number of the fractions in mm because I buy a lot of my materials in the US this became a must, every where else I buy from is metric.

Gee big surprise I am the odd one out. :) I use inches for the big stuff but once I am under 6" I switch to metric. Mostly because I use my little snap on 6" metric/english ruler constantly and I tend to use the metric side of it a lot.

In my line of work I use both constantly. I don't know if it's been mentioned here, but there's a real simple formula to convert the two. Whether you're building an airplane of building a bass guitar or anything in between, you're probably using the inch or the millimeter. All you have to do is either divide or multiply your number by 25.4. I do this a lot. The cnc machines are set up to work in inch but sometmes we get drawings in metric.

Ex:

1" is about 25 1/2mm (1"x25.4=25.4mm)

4" is about 100mm (4" x 25.4=101.6mm)

19 mm is almost 3/4" (19 / 25.4 = .748 inch)

6mm is about 1/4" (6 / 25.4 = .236 inch)

That I understand ...it was more the comment about the fret slotting that I could not see any advantage in imperial. I use both myself metric ...Sorry for the needless explanation. As one of my professors wrote one one of my tests, when i followed the wrong line of reasoning for quite a ways, "wrong tree."

It seems from his statement that root5 is only able to achieve .5mm accuracy when working metric, but can somehow achieve 1/64", 1/100" or even 1/128" accuracy when working imperial. I guess he's limited by the scales he has on hand.

My fault not yours, I should have made my question clearer as I was only really commenting on the last part which you were not to know.

That was the bit I was questioning why he can only work to .5 mm and why that was a limitation of the metric system.
Alan

Yeah, I can see that a bit if someone is used to it. Coming from a family that is heavily steeped in construction, carpentry and masonry, I am pretty good with measurements and such. But the benefit of metric is that you don't have to deal with fractions per se in the first place. There is no "quarter centimeter". The imperial system is faulty in that it requires that you typicall express a measurement in relation to another whole unit. Half a cup, quarter mile, half pound. It's tiresome to me in that regard, and I've grown up using it.

I always thought it was peculiar that people using metric generally do describe things in relation to another unit, even when the system is designed to stop that. I have never heard someone say "it's a decameter in that direction" - it's always more like "it's 10 meters in that direction". Similarly, you often hear something like "5000 kilometers away" when it would more concisely be "5 megameters".

I measure my concern in "micro give-a-***ts"

BTW - I prefer the English measurement system.

The English measurement system will live for a long time, like it or not. We Americans love our miles per hour, gallons of milk, yards of concrete, 8 foot studs, quarter - pounders, foot - pounds of torque, gallons of gas, inch tape measures, 7/16 - 1/2 - 9/16" wrenches and fasteners, ice at 32 degrees F, 10" and 12" and 15" and 18" speakers for sound reinforcement, etc.

If you expect a future day of mandatory metricism, you are going potty into the 52 km/h wind.

While we're at it, why don't we metricise sheet music, time signatures, fingerboards and keyboards too? It will be "so much easier"

And what about time? It seems efforts have been made for metric time throughout history with universal rejection. Why do you suppose people are so unreceptive to it?

And what about time? It seems efforts have been made for metric time throughout history with universal rejection. Why do you suppose people are so unreceptive to it?
Perhaps because you can't beat 60's divisibility? Perhaps because most people don't use a ruler every day, but they do tell time. And look at angle measure: we're still using 360 degrees (although somehow a certain irrational number has managed to catch on).

Really it's strange that people are so open to flimsy appeals to rationality when it comes to distance or temperature measures, but are totally insensitive in other contexts.

Perhaps because you can't beat 60's divisibility? Perhaps because most people don't use a ruler every day, but they do tell time. And look at angle measure: we're still using 360 degrees (although somehow a certain irrational number has managed to catch on).

Really it's strange that people are so open to flimsy appeals to rationality when it comes to distance or temperature measures, but are totally insensitive in other contexts.

Hmm. I can type in 99 seconds on my microwave, but if I decide my burrito needs 1 more second, and I type in 100, I don't get 100 seconds but rather 1 minute. Just seems strange.

Perhaps because you can't beat 60's divisibility? Perhaps because most people don't use a ruler every day, but they do tell time. And look at angle measure: we're still using 360 degrees (although somehow a certain irrational number has managed to catch on).

Really it's strange that people are so open to flimsy appeals to rationality when it comes to distance or temperature measures, but are totally insensitive in other contexts.

Well actually for most scientific type things you use Radians, but yeah degrees is far easier to visualize.


Don't quite get why Fahrenheit (or Rankine for that matter) is so widely used other than out of habit.

Never heard about furlongs, chains or yards before

Furlongs are still regularly used in horse racing, but it would be a bit unwieldy to ask your luthier for a bass with a 0.0042929292929 furlong scale length.

And while we're at it, I wonder how we arrived at a 34" standard long-scale bass. All I can think is that when God spoke to Leo he must've said to make it 1.945 Cubits long....Ahhhh, but was he talking Roman Cubits or Egyptian or Royal Egyptian or English Cubits

Leo must've assumed Roman and arrived at 34", if he'd used English it would have been 35" with a bit of poetic license

And while we're at it, I wonder how we arrived at a 34" standard long-scale bass. All I can think is that when God spoke to Leo he must've said ...My guess is that Leo did test pieces using his guitar slotting rig for frets 5 and above, and had fret slots 1-4 put in manually. With fret 5 at 25.5", that puts the nut at 34.038".

yes, my limit is to .5 mm so I prefer to work in imperial as I have a machinist rule that has a 1/128 scale which is about as accurate as hand work can be practically be.